If you write a "letter to the editors" of a newspaper, they may or they may NOT publish it. If you write 347 letters a year, it is certain they will not publish them all.

Here in the US, we have call-in radio "talk shows" for people to express opinions. Those programs have screeners to be sure a few folks with speed dialers and single issue agendas do not overwhelm things..(or that no one gets to scream obscenities or drunken rages).

Those are called 'moderated forums'...for good reason! In this world, there are very few places where a totally UN-moderated forum would work, because they get swamped by a combination of crazies and single-issue zealots who cause serious distractions.

The WWW/internet is a major change in life, as those who are SURE they are 'right' about some topic can, essentially, ramble on incessantly about it. Some do it with their own websites, but they are not assured that those they wish to reach will come listen....so they go to various newsgroups, bulletin boards, and discussion forums. Usenet (newsgroups)is full of examples of extended debates, discussions and 'flame wars' where it requires a will of IRON to avoid the more tedious rantings.

Mudcat has become, by necessity, a semi-moderated forum....a community where people who talk a lot about 'folk music' can also discuss other things, both serious and silly. Mechanisms have been developed to allow this to work reasonably well, but the privilege (not RIGHT--privilege gets abused at times. The process of 'moderating' gets called by other names by some of those who find THEIR posts 'moderated'.

Now....we have two issues-different, but inter-related.
1)should there be ANY moderation/censorship....and
2)if so,where and by whom

1) has been answered by the owner, Max
2) has been partially answered by the owner, Max, who does not care to read everything in the forum everyday, and couldn't if he wanted to. He delegated the job..HIS choice, and the only choice possible after 1).

'Most' people posting here are either pleased or unconcerned about the choices Max has made. But we get one or two 'members' and odd numbers of 'guests' who want to debate endlessly both 1) AND 2)!               ........And, they resort to circular arguments, saying essentially, "editing/moderating/censoring is wrong, and any attempt to edit moderate or censor my argument 'proves' that wrongness and unfairness".

Then, having made accusations of biased, unreasonable censorship, they demand the accused 'prove' they are not guilty, all the while making it clear that the ONLY way to 'prove' one is not baised and unreasonable in their censorship is to never engage in any editing or censorship! Fascinating! "The only way to run "your" forum is to make it totally "our" forum (where have I heard that before?) and allow anarchy and unlimited diatribes!"

Shambles, you say "What I am suggesting is that perhaps the best way to deal with it here is just to ignore it and to encourage others to do this by setting a good example and just move on?" ...I submit that it has been **DECIDED** that that is NOT the best way to deal with it. What part of DECIDED do you not understand? At least two of the 'censored' members you advocate so hard for have requested you NOT advocate for them, as their issues have been resolved and they trust the system!


Joe posted in the other thread, "Max hasn't fired us yet"...I think you should be happy it is Joe making most of the decisions about the relatively few deletions and thread closings...he is more generous than I think I might be.

(if you have actually read all of this....here is one more plea- which I doubt will be heard....join the OTHER discussions and let this one die!)